Documents | International Religious Liberty Association

Excuses are easy, especially if the argument behind the excuses seems unchallengeable. But however easy it may be to use an excuse to reduce freedom, especially religious freedom, the argument cannot remain unchallenged, even if national security is invoked.

Nor is it necessarily a question of mutually incompatible rights and freedoms. National security is surely a preoccupying concern, yet it is does not need to be seen as the card that trumps all others. For in the name of security many abuses can result, and society is immeasurably poorer as a result. History is littered with examples of those who have surrendered their civil liberties in return for a measure of personal and societal security.

It may be a coincidence in terms of the date when on September 11, 1773 Benjamin Franklin wrote to Josiah Quincy, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

That fundamental principle lies at the heart of the document prepared by the IRLA Board of Experts over several months, culminating in the final meeting in Leuven, Belgium, June 9-11, 2003. With many countries responding to the terror threat, the danger is that religious freedom becomes an unintended casualty, “collateral damage” to society, if you will. Believing that freedom of conscience is a vital asset to security—and that to crack down on religious expression will only destabilize society, the opposite effect of what is planned—the Board of Experts spent many hours drafting recommendations.

The introduction to the final document “Guiding Principles and Recommendations on Security and Religious Freedom” states that “Religious freedom requires security, just as true security requires religious freedom.” It goes on to point out that “The two are interdependent, mutually reinforcing, not exclusive, and do not collide or conflict. Too frequently, responses to religion-based terrorism have involved efforts to enhance security at the expense of religious freedom. These responses have often proved counterproductive, and result in violations of international standards of human rights.”

Consequently, “Such violations, which diminish both security and religious freedom, must be opposed by governments, religious groups, people of faith, and all those who truly value human rights,” the document concludes.

It is the intention of the IRLA to give this document the widest possible distribution, including governments, security agencies, international organizations, and also religious communities, as a basis for developing appropriate strategies that support security without undermining fundamental rights. Most important is the clearly expressed commitment to upholding religious freedom, which cannot be the subject of “derogation,” even when national security concerns are invoked. Indeed the document cites the relevance of international agreements as reflecting this vital principle:

“International standards have provided clear guidance concerning the narrow range of circumstances under which states may legitimately impose limits on freedom of religion or belief. The Group of Experts affirms the validity of the carefully defined and narrow limitations authorized by Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s official interpretation thereof set forth in paragraph 8 of its General Comment No. 22 (48), which specifically notes among other matters that limitations based on national security alone are not permitted.”

As James Madison so perceptively observed, “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” The danger is that by frequent and extensive actions, states will, intentionally or not, compromise religious liberties and end up destroying the freedom they so vigorously proclaim. It is the role of civil society to remind its leaders and legislators that fundamental human rights cannot be abridged or reduced without significant damage, not only to the operation of society itself, but also to national security as well. A repressed society is inherently unstable, and despite the claims of the security community, many restrictions in freedom will inevitably be counter-productive.

While recognizing Thomas Jefferson’s comment, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground,” the IRLA does not believe this necessarily has to be so. Through ensuring widespread dissemination of the importance of freedom of conscience and civil liberties to the security and social health of any nation, the IRLA invites all parties to observe the international agreements on religious freedom, not for their own sake, but from the perspective of national self-interest.

That is the intention of these guiding principles and recommendations. As a working document, it is not intended to be the last word on the subject. But at the very least it proclaims the concept that security and religious freedom do not need to be seen as conflicting—quite the opposite. The IRLA continues to believe the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt, “In the truest sense freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.”

(In addition to the actual document, we include in this edition of Fides et Libertas some papers associated with the theme of Security and Religious Freedom, along with other contributions on other subjects.)

This contribution is the IRLA’s modest achievement, and is sent out with the hope that it will find ready reception among the international community. For without true religious freedom, civil liberties, and freedom of conscience, there can be no true security for any nation.

The Leuven meetings which concluded June 11 were the culmination of a year’s intensive study and dialogue that brought together experts for previous consultations in Washington and Paris. The IRLA Group of Experts includes church leaders, experts in canon law, and academics from a wide variety of faith communities. The IRLA, organized in 1893, is now widely recognized as one of the foremost agencies in promoting and defending international religious freedom.

Maurice Verfaillie
International Association for the Defense of Religious Liberty
Switzerland

TOP